devops_work_item_link_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a write operation. The description adds value by detailing the operations (add/remove) and provides a tip for changing link types. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions needed, or atomicity. With annotations already marking it as non-read-only, the description adds moderate context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information. There is no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 6 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema (not shown). The description covers the core operations and gives a usage pattern for changing link types. It does not explain return values or error states, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is fairly complete for the main functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the op parameter's default and the remove-then-add pattern, but that's more usage guidance than parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add or remove a relation link between two work items.' It specifies the verb (add/remove), resource (relation link), and scope (between two work items). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like devops_work_item_update or devops_work_item_artifact_link_update.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Use op='add' (default) to create a new link, op='remove' to delete an existing one. To change a link type, call remove then add.' This tells the agent when to use each operation and how to change link types. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the information is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.